On 7 November 2011 21:34, Christoph Lohmann <20h_AT_r-36.net> wrote:
> It is not about adding something real. Suckless should stay as-is,
> but clarify (as done in this thread) its ideals – as you try to, too.
> Such rules then can be used to define what »suckless« really is.
> But the question is, if »suckless« is the environment or a new
> »suckless desktop environment« term is needed to subsume only the
> desktop part of suckless?

Hmm, what's wrong with simply seeing suckless as a philosophy or best
practice in software design?

> Are there enough hints spread everywhere, so the right users will
> get our true words of wisdom?

It's all about a good portion of suckless Masonry that others figure out ;)

> To get back to the what stanio said: Are we[1] dying out, are we
> growing or do we simply not care?